The Foreign State as Claimant and non-justiciability.
Hazel Fox QC
Two cases compared
President of the State of Equatorial Guinea v.Logo Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1370
Fonu v Demirel & Anor [2006] EWHC 3354 (Ch) (21 December 2006)
Position of the foreign State as party to proceedings in English court
Consent of the foreign State
whether a defence to nonjusticiability, rendering matters justiciable
President of the State of Equatorial Guinea & Ors v Logo Ltd & Ors [2005] EWHC 2034 (QB) Davis J,para 93
AY Bank Ltd v Bosnia & Herzegovina & Ors [2006] EWHC 830 (Ch) Morritt Ch.
Occidental v Ecuador [2005]EWCA EWCA Civ 1116 2 WLR 70 per Mance LJ,para 57
Relationship of rules relating to recognition, enforcement of foreign law and non justiciability.
Att Gen of New Zealand v.Ortiz[1984] AC 1
Luther v Sagor [1921] 3 KB 532.
Re Norway’s Application (Nos 1 and 2) [1989] 1 All ER 745.
Factors distinguishing the two cases
I. Distinction into public and private- acts constituting the exercise of sovereign authority and private law rights.
described as ‘prerogative rights’ FA Mann ‘Prerogative rights of foreign States and the conflict of laws’40 Transactions Grotius Society (1855) 25 reprinted in Studies in International Law 492
II. Distinction into punitive and reparation.
Huntington v,Attrill [1893] AC Loucks v. Standard Oil Co of Ne York (1918) 224 NY 120 NE 198 per Cardozo J
Raulin v. Fischer (1911) 2 KB 93
Schemmer v Property Reserves Ltd [1975] Ch 273
Decisions in other common law jurisdictions
US Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cosby [2000] BCSC 0338
United States of America v. Ivey 130 DLR (4th) 674, affirmed 139 DLR (4th) 570
Evans v. European Bank Ltd [2004] NSWLR 75
III. Distinction into the validity of the exercise of jurisdiction, whether of the foreign State or of the English court.
Williams & Humbert Ltd v. W & H Trademarks(Jersey) Ltd [1986] AC 368
IV. The Court not the appropriate agency to assist a foreign State in enforcing its law
Conclusion